Edinburgh Research Explorer
Educational outcomes of young people in Scotland who are deaf
or hard of hearing
Citation for published version:
Fordyce, M, Riddell, S, O'Neill, R & Weedon, E 2014, 'Educational outcomes of young people in Scotland who are deaf or hard of hearing: Intersections of deafness and social class ' International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 285-302. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.929749
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1080/13603116.2014.929749 Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Published In:
International Journal of Inclusive Education
Publisher Rights Statement:
© This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Inclusive Education on 30/06/2014, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13603116.2014.929749."
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Educational outcomes of young people in Scotland who are deaf or hard of hearing: intersections of deafness and social class
Introduction
Following the financial crash of 2007, there is a need to explore the changing anatomy of economic inequality in the UK and the impact of these changes on specific social groups. There is strong evidence that the recession has had a particularly negative effect on young people born in the 1980s (Hills, 2013), and that some groups of young people may have fared particularly badly, such as those with special educational needs (called additional support needs in Scotland). This paper focuses on school and post-school outcomes of a particular disability group, namely young people who are deaf or hard of hearing (hereafter DHH). While it has been recognised that people who are deaf or hard of hearing are a highly
heterogeneous group, there has been little research on the intersection between deafness and social class. This paper attempts to unpick the relationship between social class and
educational outcomes for young people who are DHH, drawing on research, funded by the National Deaf Children’s Society and conducted by researchers at the University of
Edinburgh between 2012 and 2013. Further details of research methods are provided below. The questions addressed in this paper are the following:
What patterns are evident in the educational attainment and post-school outcomes of young people in Scotland who are DHH and how do these vary by social class? What are the post-school educational experiences of young people who are DHH and
how do these vary by social class?
What are the social policy implications of the intersection of deafness and social class in post-school experiences and outcomes?
The term deaf or hard of hearing is used to denote people with all types and degrees of hearing loss. When discussing survey and administrative data on people with hearing loss, we use the terms employed in the respective datasets (e.g. hearing impairment, deaf/hearing impairment, difficulties in hearing).
Research methods
In this paper, we draw on the findings of a research project entitled Post-school Transitions of Young People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, which combined an analysis of
administrative and survey data relating to school and post-school outcomes, as well as policy analysis and case studies with thirty young people who are DHH. The statistical analysis drew on a range of sources including the Scottish Qualifications Agency (SQA), Skills Development Scotland (SDS), the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS). One of the objectives of the paper is to assess the adequacy of available data, and we therefore provide a critical
commentary on data quality and accessibility.
The case studies used semi-structured interviews, conducted orally or using British Sign Language, and e-mail correspondence with thirty young people who volunteered to
participate in the study. The interviews focused on the young people’s school experiences and experiences of post-16 education, training and employment. The young people, aged between 18 and 24 at the time of the research, were contacted via databases held by the National Deaf Children’s Society or by the Achievement of Deaf Pupils in Scotland project, a research and development initiative based at Moray House School of Education. The table
below provides an overview of the current activity and employment status of the young people.
Table 1 about here
In order to capture a complete picture of the socio-demographic characteristics of the wider DHH population, deliberate efforts were made to recruit participants from various socio-economic backgrounds, ethnic groups, geographical areas in Scotland, and in different post-school destinations. Participants’ levels of hearing loss varied from mild to profound. Five of the thirty participants used British Signed Language as their preferred method of
communication. Two young people belonged to ethnic minority groups and eight people had complex needs (e.g., learning difficulties as well as hearing impairment). The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2012) was used as an indicator of social class. The SIMD is a measure of the relative level of deprivation of people living in small areas in Scotland based on seven different aspects of deprivation: employment, income, health, education, access to services, crime and housing (Scottish Government, 2012). Thanks to outreach efforts, young people from a variety of backgrounds took part in the study (i.e., each of the SIMD quintiles were represented in the sample), although many of those who volunteered to participate tended to be from the least deprived areas. Full details of research methods are available in Fordyce et al. (2013).
In the various elements of the research, we adopted an intersectional approach to data gathering and analysis as discussed by Siltanen (2006). Whilst recognising the value of intersectional approaches because of the need to recognise the complexity of social identity, commentators have also noted the difficulty of keeping multiple variables in play at the same time (see, for example, McCall, 2005). In this paper, we have focused on the intersection of deafness and social class (in some surveys referred to as socio-economic status), but we also recognise the importance of gender and ethnicity.
Conceptualising the role of social class and disability in social reproduction
Before considering the experiences and outcomes of young people who are DHH from different social and economic backgrounds, we outline some of the on-going debates on the conceptualisation of social class and disability and their impact on life chances. Classical social science emphasised the deterministic power of overarching structures. Marxian writers such as Bourdieu (1987, 1989), for instance, portray the dynamic of class struggle as determining access to various forms of capital, which may be economic, cultural, social or symbolic. Similarly Williams (1961, 1977) suggests that social class not only determines access to economic resources, but is also experienced by the individual as a ‘structure of feeling’ which is formed in childhood and remains throughout life.
Modernist ideas such as these have been questioned by post-modern theorists, who have criticised the idea of subjectivity as a coherent and stable quality of the person, and question the extent to which life chances are determined by social structures. Nonetheless, the salience of social class continues to be recognised by theorists of late modernity such as Ulrich Beck, who articulated the idea of the ‘risk society’. Beck argued that individuals negotiate global and personal risks by making choices between different possible identities. However, he also acknowledged that risks are not randomly distributed, but are likely to adhere to class patterns, with the poor attracting ‘an unfortunate abundance of risks’ whereas the wealthy ‘can purchase safety,
freedom from risk’ (Beck 1992:35). This theoretical position recognises the relevance of theories of social, locational and economic determination and theories of reflexive self-constitution (Beck 1992; Beck et al. 1994).
The sociology of disability has also grappled with notions of structure and agency. Oliver (1990) and Barnes (1991) developed the social model of disability, described as the ‘big idea’ of the disability movement (Shakespeare and Watson, 1997). Within this theory, disability is seen as a product of economic, social and cultural oppression rather than an inevitable consequence of impairment. Abberley (1987) and Oliver (1990) emphasised the material underpinning of disability, characterising disabled people as part of the reserve army of labour required by capitalist states. Early theorists of disability studies tended to see disabled people as a homogeneous group and paid little attention to other aspects of identity. By way of contrast, feminist writers such as Thomas (1999) emphasised the need for intersectional analysis, recognising disability as ‘one set of strands in one’s web of identity’ (Thomas, 1999: 120), alongside other strands such as gender, sexual orientation, age and ethnicity. Deaf sociologists such as Corker (Corker and Shakespeare, 2002; Thomas and Corker, 2002) have also recognised the mutability of disability as a category due to the way in which an individuals’ disability status changes over time. Furthermore, Corker, like other deaf researchers, is at pains to recognise that deaf people who are sign language users may see themselves as members of a linguistic minority rather than a community of disabled people.
Despite the Marxist under-pinning of the social model of disability, with a few exceptions such as Roberts (2009), there has been very little research exploring the links between disability and social class, and even fewer studies investigating the relationship between deafness and social class (for a review, see Karchmer & Mitchell, 2011. US research tends to focus on the experiences of deaf young people from different income groups, and generally does not employ the concept of social class). Given the trend across Europe since the 1980s towards widening economic inequality (OECD, 2008; 2011), we believe that it is very important to maintain a focus on the impact of education and employment policies on young people with particular types of impairment from different social class groups.
Complexities in the categorisation of social class, disability and deafness
Analysing school and post-school outcomes of young people who are DHH is beset by a range of difficulties. For example, both social class and disability are measured in a variety of ways in different administrative contexts. With regard to social class, free school meals entitlement has often been used as a proxy measure of poverty, but this provides a rather crude binary divide and the measure breaks down when free meals are provided to all children in some schools or when registration data are inexact. Recognising this difficulty, the Scottish Government tends to use the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) as a measure of the relative economic position of different neighbourhoods in Scotland, and education data tend to be broken down by SIMD. However, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) also requests university applicants to disclose parental occupation, which is coded on the basis of the National Statistics Social and Economic Classification system (NS-SEC).
The categorisation of disability is even more complicated. Children at school are counted as having additional support needs if extra support is required to help them make progress in education. This is a much than the traditional one of special educational needs, and about
18% of children fall under this umbrella category. One of the reasons which may be cited for requiring additional support is having a hearing impairment, although not all children with DHH are identified as having additional support needs. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, schools are also required to identify any pupil who has been identified as having or has disclosed a disability. About 2.29% of pupils in Scottish schools are identified as disabled, including some children with hearing impairments. At college, university and on training programmes, identification of disability and hearing impairment is based on
self-identification. These differences in administrative categories mean that it is difficult to make exact comparisons between groups over time. Scotland, unlike England, does not have a National Pupil Database with an individual pupil identifier, and this also poses problems for longitudinal analysis.
Despite these complexities, it is still possible to compare the educational qualifications and post-school destinations of young people who are DHH and those of their hearing peers, working with the different administrative definitions which are available.
The relationship between deafness and social class on educational attainment and post-school outcomes
Figure 1 shows that overall there is an association between being identified as having additional support needs and living in an area of high deprivation. However, there are important differences between categories of difficulty. There is a strong association between SIMD and social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, a high incidence category which reflects the tendency of teachers to identify pupils from poorer areas as having behavioural difficulties. By way of contrast, children living in poorer areas are only slightly more likely to be identified as having a hearing impairment, indicating that difficulties in hearing are more likely to be identified across the social spectrum.
Figure 1 about here
Educational qualifications are a major determinant of young people’s post-school trajectories and future life chances. As in the rest of the UK, there is a strong association between social class and educational attainment for all school pupils in Scotland (Hills et al, 2010; Wyness, 2013). We were interested in the extent to which the attainment of pupils who are DHH mirrored the attainment of pupils from different social class backgrounds. Figure 2 uses Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) data to compare the mean tariff scores of deaf pupils in publicly-funded Scottish schools over a period of seven years with those of the entire pupil population by SIMD. The comparison shows that pupils who are DHH have lower attainment levels compared with their hearing peers. Whilst pupils who are DHH and live in the most deprived parts of Scotland have significantly lower attainment levels than those from more advantaged areas, this pattern is less marked than is the case for pupils in general.
The probably reflects the fact that the attainment levels of pupils who are DHH is influenced by a multitude of factors in addition to social background, such as the age at onset of deafness and the presence of additional disabilities. Some of these factors, such as the presence of additional learning difficulties, may mitigate the educational advantage experienced by the majority of children living in richer neighbourhoods.
Figure 2 about here
The relationship between deaf pupils’ social class and attainment was also investigated by Powers (2003). Based on an analysis of the attainment of deaf pupils in England across a
series of pupil, family and school variables, Powers reported that parental socio-economic status was the strongest predictor of academic achievement, although its effect was weaker than for the general population. He speculated that this might be because of a stronger school effect for deaf pupils. A further possibility is that hearing loss and other additional support needs intersect with social class in depressing the educational attainment of deaf pupils, negating some of the social advantages which are generally experienced by pupils from middle class backgrounds. We return to the issue of the intersection of social class and deafness later on in this paper, using qualitative data to illuminate some of the relationships.
Post-school destinations of pupils who are DHH compared with other pupils
Like other pupils, attainment at school has a profound impact on the post-school destinations of young people who are DHH. Analysis of data drawn from the School Leavers Survey (Scottish Government, 2013) shows that the most common destination of school leavers who are DHH is further education, while higher education is the most common destination for most school leavers who do not have additional support needs. In 2011/12, 39% of all school leavers who are DHH went into further education, compared with only 23% of non-disabled school leavers (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 about here
A further analysis of school leavers’ destinations by SIMD shows that in 2011/12 more than half (nearly 55%) of young people who are DHH from the most deprived areas in Scotland entered further education ( see Table 2). This proportion is much higher than that of school leavers with no additional support needs or other additional support needs from the most deprived areas. It should be borne in mind that further education courses include vocational courses, which are designed to lead to employment, and life skills classes, which tend to lead away from the labour market and towards other ‘special’ settings (Riddell et al., 2001). The contrast between young people who are DHH and others is particularly marked when making comparisons with young people in the other 80% of areas. Here, we find that young people who are DHH are twice as likely to go on to further education (42%), compared with young people who have not been identified as having additional support needs. The unemployment levels of young people who are DHH from the most deprived backgrounds are somewhat higher than those of their non-disabled peers, and markedly higher than those of young people with other types of additional support needs. The latter group is likely to include young people with social emotional and behavioural difficulties, who are likely to be disengaged from the labour market.
Table 2 about here
Employment outcomes of young people who are DHH
These different post-school pathways have major implications for the employment status, of people who are DHH. Labour Force Survey data show that 48% of the deaf working age population are in employment, compared with 78% of the non-disabled population. As shown in Figure 4, more deaf people are in work compared with those with mental illness (14%), but significantly lower than those with conditions such as diabetes and respiratory difficulties (61%).
Employment status is strongly associated with level of education. As discussed in the report of the National Equality Panel (Hills et al., 2010), the labour market penalty associated with having no qualifications has increased over time for all groups but particularly for disabled
people. Berthoud (2006) notes that in 1974-76, more than three quarters of disabled men with no qualifications were in employment, compared with only a third in 2001-2003. There has also been a decline, albeit less marked, in the employment prospects of disabled men with higher qualifications over time. In 1974-76, 93% of this group were in employment, but by 2001-2003 this figure had fallen to 75%.
Figure 4 about here
Average employment rates tend to conceal differences within groups and it is evident that those who progress into higher education have much better employment rates than others (Figure 5).
Figure 5 about here
According to the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS), the
outcomes for graduates who are DHH compared with other disabled graduates are generally positive. In 2012, this group had the lowest unemployment levels, the highest rates of
employment in full-time and part-time positions and the highest levels of success in obtaining management and administrative positions compared with other groups of disabled graduates. This success is likely to be attributable both to their high skill levels but also to their
relatively high socio-economic status, which provides access to social networks, facilitating entry to the professions via internment positions and work experience. An analysis of parental occupations of UK-domiciled DHH students and non-disabled students in higher education suggests that the there are no differences between the socio-economic status of the two groups. Both students who are DHH and their non-disabled peers have relatively high socio-economic status.
Figure 6 about here
By way of contrast, young people with DHH who do not progress into higher education have worse employment outcomes compared with hearing young people. This may be partly to do with the nature of the post-school vocational programmes into which they are channelled. Young people who are DHH are less likely to progress into training programmes than other young people (see Figure 3). Skills Development Scotland, an executive public body of the Scottish Government, does not collect data on the types of training programmes in which deaf young people participate, or on their employment outcomes from specific programmes. However, it is evident from Figure 7 that a very low proportion of participants on mainstream training programmes such as Modern Apprenticeships are disabled (less than 0.5% of the total). Disabled people are more likely to participate in training programmes aimed at people with additional support needs such as Training for Work, Get Ready for Work and Lifeskills, now incorporated into the Employability Fund (see Figure 7). There is evidence that only about 20% of people who participate in programmes for those requiring additional support move into some type of employment (Riddell, 2005), whereas almost all of those on employment based Modern Apprenticeship programmes find work (Riddell et al., 2008) .
Figure 7 about here
Official statistics clearly suggest that young people who are DHH have worse educational outcomes than their hearing peers, but there are significant differences between those who gain higher levels qualifications and those who leave school with few or no educational
qualifications. As shown in figure 2, the link between social class and educational attainment is slightly weaker for young deaf people than for the general population. Nonetheless, there is clearly a strong association between deafness and social class, reflected in poorer
educational outcomes and post-school destinations for young people who are DHH from poorer backgrounds, compared with those from more socially advantaged backgrounds. In the following sections, we present four brief vignettes of young people who are DHH in order to provide some insight into the way in which social class and deafness intersect in
influencing future life chances.
The intersection of social class and disability in post-school settings: evidence from case studies
Case Study 1: Sophie
Sophie was born with severe sensorineural hearing loss. She uses hearing aids and oral communication. At the time of the interview, she was living with her middle class family in a relatively affluent rural area (SIMD 4th quintile) and was in close contact with members of
her extended family living nearby. Sophie attended the local mainstream school, where a teacher of the deaf visited her once a week. She was also involved in a weekly session with a deaf peer group organised by the teachers of the deaf in her local authority. In her fourth year of secondary school, Sophie decided she would like to be a PE teacher and to help her
achieve this goal, the school organised a work placement with a deaf PE teacher from a neighbouring school.
Sophie received generic transition support from school, but the deaf PE teacher, as well as the teachers at her deaf peer group, advised her to get in touch with the Disability Office at university as soon as possible. Her parents and extended family were very involved with her transition planning:
I have to say, my parents probably helped more than the school did. […] They were always quite heavily involved in my education in terms of making sure that support was there. And it wasn’t just my parents. Like my whole family and wider family, they were always involved.
Her parents investigated the support available at different institutions and advised on her choice of university. Sophie also actively sought information from various acquaintances:
One a’ the people that I knew. He was actually my brother’s friend. His older sister, she had went to [name of university]. She …texted like ‘join as many sport societies that you can cause it gets you like knowing people really quickly. Just take part as much as you can’.
Sophie benefited from family support after she entered university, for example, her aunt proofread her essays and one of her brother’s friends recommended that she apply for a work placement at the international company where he worked. At the time of the interview, Sophie had graduated from university and was working full-time for the same company.
Case Study 2: Isla
Isla was diagnosed with profound hearing loss when she was two years old. At the time of the research, she was living in a relatively disadvantaged area (SIMD 3rd quintile) with her
with Highers and went on to study at a post ’92 university. She was well-informed about support options and her support worker gave her a list of questions to ask on Open Days about support at university. She contacted the Students Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) in her sixth year and completed her Disabled Students Award (DSA) application form. In summer, as soon as she was accepted, she had a meeting with a disability advisor and was assured that the paperwork was being processed. Despite all of these preparations, when she arrived at university Isla discovered that no communication support had been arranged. Tutors were repeatedly asked to wear the loop system microphone, but microphones rarely worked and tutors often forgot to use them. In a laboratory session, Isla asked to be allowed to sit at the front so she could lip read, but the tutor was not supportive:
She said to me, ‘Well you just have to sit through it for this tutorial, this lab, but for the next time I’ll have you down the front’. Next time I went in, still hadn’t changed it. I was raging. I was like really angry.
As time went by, Isla realised that she was missing most of the content of her course, but unlike more assertive students in our case studies, she did not go back to the Disability Office to ask for help. She dropped out at Christmas, just before she was due to hand in her first assignments.
We had a couple of big papers coming up. I had started them. I had no idea where I was going with it. I emailed my tutor and said, ‘look I’m not coming back. I can’t, I can’t hear anybody so I can’t. He said, ‘I’m sorry to hear that’. That was it! I think I cried for days.
After she left university, her father wrote a letter to the Disability Office listing their complaints. The Disability Office responded in writing:
We got two letters back. One telling my dad that they need written consent for him to contact the University on behalf of me, although I had signed the bottom of the letter along with my dad! I think that constitutes written consent. The other one I got back was an eight page letter simplifying all the points that I had pointed out to them as to what they had done wrong, accusing me of being a liar! Saying that I had never been up to speak to them.
There was no further contact between Isla or her parents and the university. Isla registered with the JobCentre and looked for work for nine months. At the time of the interview she held a full-time, permanent position as a purchasing assistant with a construction company, and she had started a part-time university degree.
Case Study 3: Leah
At the time of the research, Leah was a full-time mother living on a peripheral housing estate in an urban area of high social deprivation (SIMD 1st quintile). Her partner and 18 month old
baby daughter are also deaf. Her parents and siblings are hearing and she communicates with them orally, although she is most comfortable using BSL. She does not use hearing aids. Leah spent most of her school career in schools for the deaf since her mother believed that a mainstream school would not be suitable for her. However, she did not thrive at her
secondary school for the deaf. She was unhappy with the teachers’ low expectations and, as a result of lack of stimulation, became frustrated and disengaged. After two years at the
secondary school for the deaf, Leah moved to a mainstream high school with a resource base. There she had full-time support from teachers of the deaf who also acted as interpreters and was happy to be given more challenging work:
[Mainstream teachers] were very good and gave me more challenging work and I progressed very quickly. I felt much better and enjoyed the challenging work. It was good to get my brain working properly!
In her fourth year, Leah made a sudden decision to leave school without seeking advice and enrolled at a local college where she completed SCQF Level 3 in Beauty Therapy. She described the course as enjoyable, although it had been chosen ‘at random’. With hindsight, she believed she would have benefited from more career guidance before she left school. At the time of her interview, both Leah and her partner were unemployed and were having great difficulty finding work:
My partner has been looking for three years and he never had a proper job. He did have weekend jobs before but never had a steady job. It is so hard. He is very deaf and only uses BSL. He can’t communicate with hearing people so it is difficult for him to find a job.
Leah said that she would take ‘any job. I want to be able to earn my own wages and I don’t want to rely on the state. I want my own money’.
Case Study 4: Oliver
At the time of the research, Oliver was 23 years old. He has Down’s syndrome, severe hearing loss and other health problems. Because his communication skills were limited, his mother also took part in the interview. Oliver and his mother lived in an affluent area in a small town (SIMD 5th quintile). Oliver was in a mainstream primary school for one year and
spent the rest of his school career in special schools.
Oliver left school at 19 and went on a personal development course in college for two years. His mother believed her son had benefited from the college experience, but over the
following three years his placements were gradually reduced, and at the time of the interview he only had two half days at college.
We’re just going year by year now because […] this year they were only offered two half days, cutbacks. So we just go year by year to see what they’re going to offer. Cutbacks also affected charities, which meant the Oliver had fewer opportunities to do voluntary work.
He had a wee voluntary job down at [name of café]. […] They taught them all the skills of either in the kitchen or in the, you know, doing the tables and all that kinda thing. But then they lost their funding.
At the time of the interview, Oliver was attending a day centre two days a week, and spent Mondays at home with his mother. He had a very busy social life in the evenings and on
weekends. His mother believed he was not able to live independently, and took him to a variety of special clubs and activities. In the context of cutbacks in funding, she was worried about his future:
I don’t really want him in the day centre kind of five days a week. You know, I don’t think that’s right for him. […] But yes five years’ time if they had their way he would probably be in the day centre four days a week. And he’s not, I don’t think, moving out any time soon.
She was hoping that the launch of direct payments would allow him a greater degree of independence:
We’d been waiting for direct payments to get a one to one for somebody to take him out for about three years. […] I think I would probably choose for someone to take him out to do what he wants to do. To do the things that he likes to do. You know, tae, I mean he likes going tae the gym and stuff but he doesn’t want to go with his mum. You know, he’s twenty three.
Conclusion: social class, deafness and post-school destinations
The quantitative data and brief case studies presented above illustrate the way in which social class and deafness intersect in influencing the educational outcomes and future life chance of young people who are DHH. Young people who are DHH have lower educational attainment than their hearing peers and are less likely to progress into higher education after leaving school. Further education is the most common post-school destination for this group, with a minority participating in training programmes, moving into employment or becoming unemployed. As with the mainstream population, social class is strongly associated with educational outcomes and post-school destinations, which have a major bearing on future life chances.
The case studies provide insight into the use of social capital by middle class young people who are DHH to mitigate some of the negative consequences of being a deaf person in a hearing world. Social capital has been defined by Schuller, Baron, and Field as ‘broadly, social networks, the reciprocities that arise from them, and the value of these for achieving mutual goals’ (Schuller et al., 2000, p. 1). Individuals’ networks of social and community relations are used to navigate education, training and employment markets in order to achieve the most advantageous outcomes. The social networks and advocacy power of parents are closely related to their socio-economic status and appear to be of great importance not just during the school years, bit into post-school education and the labour market. This is very evident in the case of Sophie, whose family members were very active in helping her choose a university, providing help with her academic course and helping her find work after
graduating. Other middle class parents in our study moved house to support the young person through university and actively intervened to ensure that a student who had dropped out of a course was readmitted. Professional work networks were very important in obtaining graduate level work post-graduation.
By way of contrast, students from less advantaged social backgrounds had much more difficult post-school experiences. Isla, from a less advantaged background, managed to secure a place at university but subsequently lacked the family support to ensure success in completing the course. Her father’s attempt to intervene with the Disability Office was
unsuccessful, partly because he was unable to manage the negotiation directly with the relevant person.
Leah, from a very disadvantaged background, also lacked parental and school support. She believed that her education, mainly delivered in a special school for the deaf, failed to
develop her academic potential. Whilst her later placement in a mainstream school was more enjoyable, she continued to be socially isolated and received no support through the post-school transition process. The course she undertook at college was chosen impulsively and did not lead to employment in that area. At the time of the research, she was living with her partner and baby in a very deprived area and was struggling to find work. Apart from her immediate family, she had little social contact and felt increasingly socially isolated. Whilst middle class social capital appears to facilitate post-school transitions, this did not appear to be the case for Oliver, a young man who was deaf and had significant additional support needs. His life chances were circumscribed by very limited opportunities for progression and public sector cuts were reducing education and employment opportunities even further. He was being forced into the role of eternal child, with little opportunity of achieving economic or social independence. His experiences suggest that middle class status cannot overcome the social and material disadvantages associated with significant disability. Within Scotland, it is recognised that many disabled young people, including those who are DHH, are experiencing major problems in post-school transitions, made worse by public spending cuts which are reducing the availability of post-school options for the most
disabled. In February 2012, Scottish Ministers reported to the Scottish Parliament for the first time on the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended) (Scottish Government, 2012h). They noted shortcomings in the transition process, and suggested a range of management solutions to the problem, including the production of more detailed transition plans for young people who are DHH. The report, however, did not comment on the positive post-school outcomes which are achieved by young deaf people from more socially advantaged backgrounds, compared with the limited opportunities available to those from poorer backgrounds. The findings of this research suggest that if the lives of deaf young people improvements are to be improved, then their social class background, as well as their deafness, needs to be taken into account.
References
Abberley (1987)
Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services Disability Task Group (2012). What happens next? A report on the first destinations of 2009/10 disabled graduates. Retrieved from http://www.agcas.org.uk/agcas_resources/17
Arendt et al. (2013)
Barnes (1991) Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination London: Hurst Calgary Beck et al. 1994
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Berthoud, R. (2006) The Employment Rates of Disabled People DWP Research Report No. 298, London: Department for Work and Pensions.
Bourdieu (1987) Bourdieu (1989)
Corker, M. and Shakespeare, T. (Eds.) (2002) Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability Theory London: Continuum
Fordyce, M., Riddell, S., O'Neill, R. and Weedon, E. (2013) Post-school Transitions of People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Edinburgh: Centre for Research in Education, Inclusion and Diversity. Retrieved from
http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/education/creid/Reports/30iii_NDCS_PostSchTransit_Final Rpt.pdf
Hills, 2013
Hills, J., Brewer, M., Jenkins, S., Lister, R., Lupton, R., Machin, S., Mills, C., Modood, T., Rees, T. and Riddell, S. (2010) An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK Report of the National Equality Panel London: London School of Economics.
McCall, 2005 OECD (2008) OECD (2011) Oliver (1990)
Karchmer, M. A., & Mitchell, R. E. (2011). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In Marschark, M., and Spencer, P. E. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Volume 1, Second Edition, pp. 18- 31
Powers (2003) Riddell, (2005)
Riddell, S. (2009). Disability, exclusion and transition to adulthood. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood. London: Routledge
Riddell, S., Edward, S., Raffe, D., Tett, L., & Weedon, E. (2008). Skills Development Scotland: an overview of the policy and delivery base. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Riddell, S., Tinklin, T., & Wilson, A. (2005). Disabled students in Higher Education.
London: Routledge.
Roberts, K. (2009). Socio-economic reproduction. In A. Furlong (Ed.) Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood. London: Routledge.
Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field J. (2000). Social capital: a review and critique. In Baron, S., Field J. and Schuller, T. (Eds.), Social capital: critical perspectives (pp. 1-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scottish Government (2012). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012. A National Statistics Publication for Scotland. Edinburgh: SG. Retrieved from
http://22fa0f74501b902c9f11-8b3fbddfa1e1fab453a8e75cb14f3396.r26.cf3.rackcdn.com/simd_448749_v7_20121217.p df
Scottish Government (2013). Source: attainment and leaver destinations, supplementary data.
Scottish Government (2013). Summary statistics for attainment, leaver destinations and healthy living, no. 3: 2013 edition - attainment and leaver destinations
Shakespeare and Watson (1997) Siltanen, 2006
Thomas (1999)
Thomas, C. and Corker, M. (2002) ‘A journey round the social model’ in M. Corker and T. Shakespeare (Eds.) (2002) Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability Theory London: Continuum
Williams (1961) Williams (1977)
Wyness, G. (2013). Educational attainment and inequality in Scotland: How does Scotland compare with the rest of the UK? Edinburgh: Centre for Research in Education, Inclusion and Diversity.
Table 1: Number of participants by current activity and key socio-demographic characteristics Current activity Gender Ethnicity Communication Other
additiona l support needs Scottish index of multiple deprivation (quintile ranking) Mal e femal e whit e Non-whit e Ora l British Sign Languag e 1 2 3 4 5 Post-16 education HE 5 4 9 - 7 2 - - - 1 1 6 FE 2 1 3 - 2 1 1 1 1 - - 1 Training 2 1 3 - 3 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 Employmen t Graduate occupation s 1 1 2 - 2 - 1 - - - 2 - Non-graduate occupation s 1 6 5 2 7 - 3 - - 2 1 4 Jobseekers 1 3 4 - 4 - 2 - - 2 - Not in education, employment or training 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - -
Not available for
employment - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - - -
TOTAL 13 17 28 2 25 5 8 3 1 6 4 1
Table 2: School leavers’ participation rates in further education and unemployment rates by level of deprivation and type of support needs
Type of support needs Most deprived 20% areas
in Scotland The other 80% areas Further
education
Unemployment Further education
Unemployment School leavers with hearing
impairment 54.8% 19.4% 42.2% 14.7%
School leavers with no additional
support needs 33.5% 14.7% 23.2% 7.6%
School leavers with any additional
support needs 39.2% 23.1% 39.1% 13.9%
Source: Scottish Government, 2013.
1. These are the destinations of school leavers from publicly-funded Scottish schools six months after leaving school.
2. SIMD 2012 quintile ranking is used here as an indicator of social class.
3. We are unable to show data for other destinations because of low numbers of DHH young people from the poorest backgrounds
Figure 1: Pupils in Scottish publicly-funded schools by SIMD quintile (percentage of total in each category), 2012
SOURCE: THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, 2013
Note. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintile ranking is used here as an indicator of social class.
Figure 2 Mean tariff scores of deaf pupils and general pupil population at the end of lower secondary by SIMD
Source. Arendt et al., 2013.
1. SIMD quintile ranking is used as an indicator of socio-economic status. 2. Mean tariff scores are based on weighted averages between 2004 and 2010.
Figure 3: Destinations of Scottish school leavers with no support needs and leavers with hearing impairment, as percentage of all leavers in each group, 2011/12
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Most deprived 20% 2 3 4 Least deprived 20% All pupils Hearing-impaired pupils Pupils with any additional support needs
0 50 100 150 200 250 Most deprived 20% 2 3 4 Least deprived 20% All Scottish pupils Deaf pupils
SOURCE: ATTAINMENT AND LEAVER DESTINATIONS, SUPPLEMENTARY DATA. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2013)
1. Where data are not disclosed due to low numbers (below 5) we have allowed for two pupils in order to show that some pupils achieved qualifications at a particular level. 2. There were no hearing-impaired school leavers in Activity Agreements and Voluntary
Work, and these categories were not included in the figure.
3. Because of undisclosed figures and rounding up of percentages, numbers may not add up to 100%.
Figure 4: Employment rates of working-age people in Great Britain by type of impairment, 2012
SOURCE: THE LABOUR FORCE SURVEY 2012 QUARTER 2
1. This figure shows only a selection of the types of impairment in the Labour Force Survey. 2. Employment rates cover both employees and self-employed people.
3. Respondents who experienced multiple difficulties were asked to identify their main impairment.
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
HE FE Training Employment Unemployed
Seeking
Unemployed Not Seeking No ASN Hearing impairment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Non-disabled Diabetes Difficulty in hearing
Difficulty in seeing
Depression, anxiety
Mental illness Learning difficulties
Figure 5: Destinations of D/HH graduates, compared to disabled and non-disabled graduates, as percentage of all graduates in each group, 2009/10
SOURCE: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? AGCAS DISABILITY TASK GROUP (2012)
Figure 6 about here
Figure 6 Comparison of parental socio-economic status of deaf and non-disabled university students
Source: Students in UK Higher Education Institutions 2011/12, Higher Education Statistics Agency
Figure 7: Disabled people on National Training Programmes as of 31st March, as percentage of total number of people on each programme, 2010 to 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Deaf/hearing impairment Disabled Non disabled
Full-time work Part-time work Voluntary work Work & study
Study Unemployed Unavailable Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Higher managerial & professional occupations Lower managerial & professional occupations Intermediate occupations Small employers & own account workers Lower supervisory & technical occupations Routine occupations Never worked & long-term unemployed Deaf/hearing impairment No known disability
SOURCE: SKILLS DEVELOPMENT SCOTLAND, DATA SUPPLIED BY THE GOVERNMENT LIAISON TEAM, APRIL 2013
1. Disability information is based on self-assessment.
2. Modern Apprenticeships figures include all ages (16-19 and 20+) and all qualification levels. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Modern Apprenticeship Training for Work Get Ready for Work Lifeskills 2010 2011 2012
